Review
(criteria) |
 Comment Very nice work, definitely valuable. I think we should go for a narrower scope (I don't often say that!), something like "unemployment by country" (because this map tells nothing about what unemployment is). Could you please propose something? --Eusebius (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- I realise that. I keep close tags on the page and therefore on the CIA's data. It hasn't been updated since 10 February, which I believe was to update the US unemployment figures. They were updated in the article accordingly, but didn't need to be updated in the map, because the rate of unemployment was still between 5-10%. Jolly Janner 14:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Jolly Janner 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The vector source is more valuable than the raster version (especially when the latter is a derivative), because it is much easier to update, to translate, to modify, to reuse in a derivative work, and can be used on supports of any size, even though the PNG version might be preferrable for display within a WP article. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But when I update the SVG, I always update the PNG straight after. The text looks wierd on the SVG and viewers are not able to see smaller location such as Hong Kong, because of its low resolution. Only users with Inkscape or SVG viewers are able to zoom in on it to see the smaller locations. However, the PNG is viewable by all and users can zoom in close enough to see the smaller locations. Jolly Janner 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your argument, but still, the source file is the SVG, and we should think further than you being the sole editor of this file. I'm not a specialist in vector graphics, but isn't it possible to save it specifying a different size, so that it looks more acceptable to you? --Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can export a bitmap at which ever resolution I like. That is what I did with the PNG version to help readers. With the vector you can simply select all the objects and drag the corner outwards to expand the image. I did so and uploaded a new revision, but it will still be displayed at the default size. If users want to see a larger version then they will have to download SVG software and download the map into it. Then they can zoom in and out. However, the vast majority of Wikipedia viewers do not have such software. That's why I feel the PNG is more valued, because users can just zoom in like with a normal image. Jolly Janner (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more opinions here, the issue is broader than a single candidate (we already have a number of promoted SVGs, but I guess they weren't that large). Would you care to summarize your point at Commons talk:Valued image candidates? --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, but I guess I'll have to. Jolly Janner (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done see Commons talk:Valued image candidates#PNG vs SVG. Jolly Janner (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. --Eusebius (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now changed it to the SVG version. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Sorry to be the spanner in the wheel, but I don't think you're going to be able to construct a fitting scope here. the data is a mixed bag ranging from 1996 estimates to 2008 published figures. You can't distil any 'valuable' map out of this data. One cannot compare unemployment data (which is already a vague notion to start with, cause every odd country has its own definition) which is such a rapid changing parameter, within a temporal range of over 12 years! Lycaon (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is an international definition for unemployment, maintained by the International Labour Organization. Therefore, how unemployment is defined can be unified (don't know if it is the case here), but maybe how it is measured is still an issue. --Eusebius (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The CIA's a reliable source of information. Jolly Janner (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
